The Thinking Process of a Grandmaster

but do all GMs have the same way of thinking???

Hierarchical thinking. Your thoughts are built upon previous learning experience. In other words: the more you play, the more efficient your chess-thinking becomes.

I don't think they have different goals in mind. As to their "different abilities to memorize and recall key positions," the point is that those different abilities arise from their experience and knowledge, not from some innate ability masters possess that the rest of us lack. What we (if we're not masters, and I'm certainly not!) lack, and they do not, is precisely that experience and knowledge. So, no, I don't consider differences in memory and knowledge differences in thinking. But differences in memory and knowledge do lead to different results!

To me, this is all the more reason to respect GMs. They're not just random people who happen to hit upon some secret thought process, allowing them to attain chess mastership. They work with the same tools we all do (barring any mental or physical handicaps, of course).

SmyslovFan wrote:

dmvdc, do you see that what you are describing as differences in memory is a difference in thinking?

De Groot's point about thought processes is that both amateurs and GMs calculate in similar manners. But they have different goals in mind (evaluations) and different abilities to memorize and recall key positions. 

Those are real differences in thinking. 

I would agree that they may ask some of the same questions, but they often come to different conclusions.

I would think GM's have more of an ability at creativity skills (at least as far as chess goes anyway) than most people that try to learn later in life. That does not mean other creative geniuses can't be great at chess. I personally believe everyone thinks differently, at least to some degree in different areas. So obviously some exceptions could occur, its just unlikely unless one has all the proper mentalities (lol, not sure if that is even a word) needed.

However learning ( or just having the ability ) the creative parts especially the older you get, the harder it becomes normally. I guess there could be exceptions, but generally it may not be possible at least for most people, or so difficult for most after a certain age, that its not worth the effort.

I would also think that age could also vary per person. So there isn't an age per se. Its just much easier to pick things up if you are younger. As well as highly unlikely for most to reach GM status after a certain age in their life, and usually going from past GM's, that age is typically pretty young, not that there isn't a few exceptions, its just very unlikely.

That does not mean you can't be a very good player however. And chess is a game that you can derive many hours of pleasure from. So play for the enjoyment, not to reach some title. You may reach the title, but if you enjoy it first, then you won't have any regrets, because you didn't ever receive that title. Good luck.

Wow guys I didnt even know there was a Book on GrandMaster's, thanks to everyone for their input.

@sydfhd, wait for 10 years! 

how kasparov was think on board?

10,000 hours of study/learning/practice according to Malcolm Gladwell'sbook "Outliers".

Going by some of the books I have seen on chess where masters attempt to explain how the game is played, they are unable to put their own thoughts into print. They give a plus or minus sign to positions, or white is slightly better type comments, no explanation as to why or how they know a position is better or worse. 

You could say most masters can't write for toffee, maybe that is one of the requirements to becoming a GM. 

I think you learn these questions by analysing games and really trying to figure out "why did i think that was good?" "why didn't i see that" and then trying to train yourself to make those errors disappear and become automatic and common sense to you. sometimes you might make up questions to ask yourself to achieve this.

Ok here some questions I would like to ask a chess master regarding their learning methods:

1) How did chess masters analyze openings prior to computer analysis. Often the difference between a good and a mediocre opening move is incredibly subtle, and without computer analysis I have no idea how I would go about analyzing them.

2) How do chess masters get so natural at thinking in algebraic notation? Is it just from reading lots of chess books or do prodigies initially make themselves think of the notation when they're moving in games or when analyzing.  

3) When do chess masters first learn how to evaluate positions intuitively, for example being able to say 'white is slightly ahead here' or 'the position is roughly equal' Is this just something that comes after playing 10000s of games?

4) When you first started playing chess, did you develop a system for avoiding blunders? i.e. a fixed set of steps that you go through in exactly the same way every move in order to make sure that you haven't blundered?

Think of chess as a language. To become fluent, immerse yourself in chess for several hours every day. Play tons of blitz and bullet, and study without moving the pieces at least one hour every day.

It's the sort of question someone who doesn't know anything about chess would think is useful to ask.

It's essentially making the mistake of thinking a GM is strong because they use a trick. There's no trick. A GM at the chess board thinks (almost) exactly the same way I do. They do a little bit of static evaluation, and a little bit of calculation. That generates some candidate moves, then the candidates are calculated and evaluated.

This is how humans play chess.

It's like asking what was Arnold Schwarzenegger's trick for bench pressing 300 lbs.

There's no trick. He bench presses the same way all humans bench press.

It's a ridiculous question.

Think like a grandmaster explains it.